Tuesday, April 12, 2016

Inherit the Wind: Evolution is an Illusion

It’s Where They Wanted To Go

In the original Star Trek pilot entitled “The Cage,” the Enterprise receives a distress signal from a long lost exploration vessel. The signal was transmitted 20 years ago, and the Enterprise responds hoping to find survivors. The landing party arrives at the planet’s surface and, indeed, they find elderly crew members who have carved out a living for themselves on the distant planet. It is a futuristic version of “The Swiss Family Robinson,” but there’s just one problem: It is all an illusion.

The planet has an advanced civilization living underground. They produced an illusion that was exactly what Captain Pike wanted to see. The elderly crew, happily and resourcefully making a life for themselves was exactly what everyone was hoping for (click now on video).

It is the same with evolution’s poster child, Inherit the Wind. Whereas Arthur Miller was worried critics would think he was skewing history for a mere partisan purpose with his brilliant play, The Crucible, [1] Jerome Lawrence and Robert Lee had no such compunction in writing their blatantly false, two-dimensional cartoon version of the 1925 Monkey Trial.

When Miller travelled to Salem he uncovered something profound. The Witch Trial records were eerily parallel to the anti-Communist hysteria of the 1940s. His task was not to contrive a silly fiction, but to reveal a dangerous, and all too real, stain within humanity. False accusations, smears, character assassination, black-balling, secret lists, group-think, and cowardice. It was all there.

Unlike The Crucible, Inherit the Wind fails to uncover in Dayton, Tennessee, an underlying theme or connection to McCarthyism. So Lawrence and Lee did something Miller never did—they constructed a false illusion.

John Scopes becomes a humble and tireless science teacher hauled off to jail by an angry mob of fundamentalists, led by a vitriolic Reverend Jeremiah Brown, for trying to enlighten his science students. In fear for his life he contacts journalist Henry Louis Mencken for help in securing a lawyer. The townspeople march in protest, singing hymns, and the William Jennings Bryan character—a loudmouth glutton—is slayed by the Clarence Darrow protagonist. None of this ever happened.

This is the mythological Warfare Thesis set to script. Inherit the Wind is an enduring and durable tale not because it uncovers an important truth but because it plays to humanity’s weakest tendencies. The script presents a false reality. It is a mythical tale using the 1925 Monkey Trial to gain an aura of realism.

As NT Wright said of Darwin, the reason why Inherit the Wind gets the mileage that it does is because that is where people wanted to go.

As with “The Cage,” the illusion is what people want to believe. Just as the alien civilization produced an illusion that was precisely what Captain Pike would want to see, Inherit the Wind is precisely the Warfare Thesis illusion that evolutionists want to see. Flyover country is full of dangerous, anti-intellectual, fundamentalists who need to be set straight by the likes of Spencer Tracy.

Inherit the Wind, and the broader Warfare Thesis myth, have fueled precisely what Miller helped to expose. Inherit the Wind claims to oppose the dangerous, anti-intellectual, fundamentalism, but, in fact, it reinforced it. Instead of labelling people as communists, they are now labelled as anti-science. Otherwise the scene remains complete with the usual false accusations, character smears, black-balling, secret lists, group-think, and cowardice. It’s all still there.

Evolutionists are the dangerous, anti-intellectual, fundamentalists. The American Bar Association absurdly ratesInherit the Wind as one of the top legal movies of all time.

And the ABA is not simply a lone nut. Legal expert Andrew Cohen not only gave high praise to Inherit the Wind, but ridiculously called it “one of the great trial movies of all time.”

Judge John Jones—exalted as one of Time magazine’s 100 Most Influential People of the Year—unbelievably revealed that he actually wanted to see Inherit the Wind a second time in preparation for the 2005 Dover case, over which he presided, because, after all, the film puts the origins debate into its proper “historical context.”

Proper historical context? You’ve got to be kidding.

What a classic mistrial. Jones had been so indoctrinated by the Warfare Thesis that he actually believed the evolutionary propaganda to be historically accurate. If the perfect crime is the one that is never discovered, the perfect propaganda is the one that is never understood. Jones later reminisced about the trial, unbelievably explaining that “I understood the general theme. I’d seen Inherit the Wind.” Jones was not educated, he was brainwashed.

307 comments:

"Cornelius, I've always known that original pilot Star Trek movie as "The Menagerie"

The Cage was the original Star Trek pilot but it was not televised as filmed until after the end of the original series. The Menagerie was a two part episode of the original series which took elements from The Cage and incorporated them into a new story line which included Kirk. Kirk was not in The Cage as Jeffrey Hunter, as Capt. Pike, was to be the captain of the Enterprise. Hunter dropped out before production was approved and was replaced by William Shatner as Kirk.

Inherit the Wind was pure Darwinist propaganda produced by simpletons who knew next to nothing about molecular biology. The recently produced play, Disinherit the Wind, is much more accurate in its portrayal of the science. See link below.

I suppose if one can't refute the solid science that supports evolutionary theory the next best thing is to attack a 50+ year old movie or the results of a 10+ year ago trial ID-Creationism lost badly.

Evotard Timothy Horton's mission is to spend his entire life inheriting the wind. The idiot cannot live without a constant warfare between good science and evil creationism. Science belongs only to the evotards, you see. Nobody has the right to call themselves scientists if they refuse to worship the Flying Dirt Monster.

Atheist Isaac Asimov once wrote a sci-fi story (Nightfall) that epitomizes the warfare thesis. Atheists cannot live without an idealized enemy. Horton goes bezerk when he realizes that not all Christians fall under his cookie-cutter creationist label.

All evolutionists have a rather severe inferiority complex. That comes from being unable to test the claims their position makes. They cannot deal with science, heck it is clear most don't even know what science is. They don't even have a methodology nor a mechanism capable of explaining life's diversity

Evolutionary science is pure unmitigated superstition based on the belief that dirt gave rise to life and that primitive organisms self-organized to create reptiles, whales and monkeys. LOL

Evolution just a Big Brother religion (the Church of the Flying Dirt Monster, the one true religion) pretending to be science. It can only succeed through incessant lies, mass propaganda and the forced brainwashing of young minds. Worst of all, evolutionists steal the taxpayer's money to preach their chicken-feather voodoo cult in our schools, something that is forbidden by the constitutions of the majority of the countries of the world.

As Feyerabend once wrote in Against Method, "the most stupid procedures and the most laughable result in their domain are surrounded with an aura of excellence. It is time to cut them down to size and to give them a lower position in society."

We need a truly secular society. It's time to kick the con artists and the pretenders out. LOL

Solid science? Haven't seen it.ID is not Creationism. Do your homework.If ID lost badly, why is it still around and growing? Judge Jones was and is an ideologue. His ruling was absurd because he went beyond the parameters of the case.

ID is growing? The only place still pushing ID is the RW religious think-tank Discovery Institute. Their sham science journal Bio-Complexity had a grand total of 2 articles in 2015 and 0 so far in 2016.

So ID will do no research until after ID is accepted scientific consensus. But ID will never be the accepted scientific consensus until the research is done which demonstrates ID's positive case. Sounds like you have a bit of a chicken/egg problem.

In the meantime ID "researchers" sit on their fat asses and swill beer? Why can't they do any research now? Two papers in a sham journal in two years won't cut it.

Joe: "ID is growing due to the science and the evidence. And the fact that no one else has any viable explanation for what we observe."

OK, but where is the actual evidence for this? e.g., can you point to an increase in papers, curriculum, web sites, patents, conferences, books, citations etc? Otherwise it just seems like an assertion on your part.

Joe: "ID is growing due to the science and the evidence. And the fact that no one else has any viable explanation for what we observe."

OK, but where is the actual evidence for this? e.g., can you point to an increase in papers, curriculum, web sites, patents, conferences, books, citations etc? Otherwise it just seems like an assertion on your part

Joe, you didn't answer CaroleTim's question. Where is the evidence ID is growing?

You are an idiot with delusions, Timmy. I understand that it bothers you that your position makes untestable claims and because of that isn't science. But attacking ID with your ignorance is not helping.

They are not just stupid. They are stupid as dirt. Anybody who believes that order can arise out of chaos via random process is an idiot and should be relentlessly vilified and ridiculed.

The dirt worshippers are convinced that they are smarter than everyone else. Their insufferable pomposity is legendary. Their deceptive nature is worse than their stupidity. They think they are so smart as to fool the entire world. Problem is, the world will reject them and their stupid superstitious religion.

LoL! Timmy admits that it is too stupid to understand simple explanations. And like the coward it is, moves the goalposts and doesn't grasp the fact that there are wavelength and frequency calculators that do what it is asking of me.

Cornelius, you must be so proud to have these mental midgets (oops, little people) supporting your cause. Are you as big a homophobic bigot as Louis?

Your silence on this matter does not paint you in a good light. Why don't you come out and say whether or not you support Mapou's and Joe's homophobic, bigoted, obscenity laden views? You seem to be quick to criticize GR's and my comments, but keep silent on Beavis and Butthead's. Do you have so few supporters that you fear alienating these two morons?

It is just sad when someone suffers from serious psychological problems. We shouldn't be making fun of people like Joe and Louis. We should give them our sympathy, and support them in any way possible. It is not their fault.

It's truly pathetic watching two Christophobic atheist homosexuals giving morality lessons to a Christian (Cornelius) on his own blog. And then they frequent a Christophobic (with an overwhelming homosexual undercurrent) forum at antievolution.org where they use a homosexual epithet (Cornholio) to refer to the same Christian.

LoL! The evidence I will present is already on my blog. I will start with the genetic code and watch the evoTARDs squirm because they have nothing to explain it. I will bring up the 10 million dollar challenge that will still be available because evoTARDs don't have a clue as to how to test the claims of their position.

Ken Miller will get caught lying- that will be worth everything. Evos will have to admit that theirs is not science because it cannot be tested.

But anyway you have nothing but your ignorant spewage and all you do is the imbecile shuffle.

Big fat puss Joe G. You'll never live down that time you were running your mouth and threatening to beat up people. Someone called your bluff and you gave an address of where you could be found "any time". Only the address you gave was in a vacant lot 50 miles from your real address.

Joe, you keep indulging evotard Timothy Horton in his homosexual fantasy game. Getting emotionally personal with a heterosexual male is one of the things they crave. I see it all the time in my business partner and my next-door neighbor. You simply have to put a stop to it.

LoL! You are a willfully ignorant troll, Timmy TuTu. And ID-Creationism exist only in the minds of the willfully ignorant.

That said, I and many others, have made a positive case for ID. OTOH no one has ever made a positive case for unguided evolution. Heck Darwin said that to falsify his claims one has to prove a negative.

Life, the genetic code, the laws that govern the universe, biological systems and subsystems- all are evidence for ID and your position doesn't have anything to explain them.

And wow that's really big science. Telling us what possibly might have happened. Should be front page news.

Look at me I'M AN ENGINEER!

Hey ghostrider: since I'm using a screen name, why would I care that anyone notices my training, and give me kudos. But I wouldn't expect you to consider that.There's maybe one person reading here knows my identity.

ghostrider: If you C&P more homework from your undergrad EE classes all the girls will know you're a fart smella, er, smart fella

Hey ghostrider, since I'm a bass player and a sax player I totally made up the problem.

Now I'm going to give you a little more science, to overcome your bias against science on this thread. See a taut string is a transmission line. Transmission lines are fun to play with and are characterized with what are called distributed parameters, and modeled as partial differential equations, with boundary conditions dependent on the endpoint behavior (say whether or not there is damping there, or whether the endpoint is fixed or has lateral freedom). But if the string is carefully excited in certain ways it can be modeled as having lumped parameters like in what you study in basic electric circuits and so can be described by ordinary differential equations of any order, which is the amazing thing, just on the basis the excitation spectral makeup. The excitation is the input and the sound is the output.

I'm going to give you the rest of the tutorial, but I have a reminder: Since you are all about the natural sciences what course in the colleges of natural sciences would possibly have the string problem on a test? I asked you before don't you know what undergraduate course would have it?

Hey ghostrider you asked me plenty of times in the past and I answered you, remember on Nyquist sampling? When you learned a little bit on that? (more of which I can help). So I know you can answer us here.

Now you must love the natural sciences but then maybe you disdain those of us on this board some with PhD's, for no reason, unless I read you wrong. Why not just go ahead and tell me what class that is that the bass guitar string problem would pop up.

You must have non-existent social skill

To the contrary, I've been very helpful and reasonable towards you, like I am with all my friends, which btw many of them I make on stage around a city in the top 10 metro in the country. I have provided you with some rudimentary info on estimators and Shannon and about transmission lines. You have benefited from my goodwill towards you and the young readers. BTW I made an incorrect statement about estimators on a previous thread if you want to go find it. Very important for the natural sciences

Remember too I asked you something on Nyquist sampling and you answered? So I know you can do it.

AMENJones was a incompetent judge/lawyer for many reasons.Indeed probably with a agenda to censor creationism just because he said it was not true and to say creationists are bad people for trying to bring it into schools. Or rather trying to stop state censorship.Another case is needed.It should not be hard to defeat state censorship especially if religious concepts are bumped into.Better layers please.

The old case of Scopes is very suspicious. I understand it was not to ban creationism but include evolutionism.Anyways if the cases and movies about them are meant to persuade people then it must matter what people think.So let the people vote these things in or out.What are they afraid of?LOSING!!

Hollywood had a anti christian agenda and so does the law associations and TIME.They don't represent real americans in any way. they shouldn't be the boss.

AMENJones was a incompetent judge/lawyer for many reasons.Indeed probably with a agenda to censor creationism just because he said it was not true and to say creationists are bad people for trying to bring it into schools. Or rather trying to stop state censorship.Another case is needed.It should not be hard to defeat state censorship especially if religious concepts are bumped into.Better layers please.

The old case of Scopes is very suspicious. I understand it was not to ban creationism but include evolutionism.Anyways if the cases and movies about them are meant to persuade people then it must matter what people think.So let the people vote these things in or out.What are they afraid of?LOSING!!

Hollywood had a anti christian agenda and so does the law associations and TIME.They don't represent real americans in any way. they shouldn't be the boss.

Darwinists are indeed losing and they absolutely hate people like Dr. Stephen Meyer and Dr. James Tour who are not afraid to expose them as zealots of a secular religion. I love watching Darwinists squirm under the interrogation spotlight. Even the corrupt mainstream media cannot save them.

ghostrider: uneducated laymen [here] have zero understanding of the subject. To the professional scientific community the claims [discussed here] really are just silly rhetoric.

Poor baby engineer. So much ignorance, so little time. Look at me I'M AN ENGINEER

OK let's go back a few years when ghostrider was trying to throw some enginering prowess at yours truly and get shown his own ignorance: http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/08/gene-myth-part-i-addendum.html

You claim to be an EE - how often do you need to sample an analog voice signal to recreate it with enough fidelity to be understandable?

my answer: There is not a mathematical definition of the condition you propose

Well duh since there is no mathematical definition of enough fidelity to be understandable?

so then ghostrider goes: LOL! In other words you don't have any understanding of sampling theory or Nyquist frequency either. I guess you never read that big statistics book you were crowing about. ....I asked about the practical limits of the digitization rate to reproduce human voice just to see if you understood the issues with digital sampling of analog signals. It's obvious you don't.

Poor guy doesn't know that function sampling is not statistical and so is not covered in a statistics book. It is demostrated purely through analysis using the Fourier transform.

And so I answer: You can significantly undersample an analog voice signal and it will have more and more unpleasant screeching distortion from aliasing, that is, overlaping of the spectral image aliases into audio range. But THERE IS NO MATHEMATICAL DETERMINATION OF HOW MUCH UNDERSAMPLING CAN BE TOLERATED BY HUMAN HEARING before understanding of language is impacted.

then later ghostrider says High quality DVDs use a 24-bit A/D and run at a sampling rate of 192KHz. When a recording is made and played back with the matching 24 bit D/A (and a good amp and speakers), the results are virtually indistinguishable from a live singer. Lots of samples = better fidelity.

The problem with this is it is wrong. DVD audio is recorded at 48 or 96 Ksps and 16 or 24 bit resolution and it is played back at 192 Ksps @24 bits. I made an error here thinking he was referring to CD standard and not DVD's, but he got the recorded sample rate incorrect, and "fidelity" is not a scientific/engineering term and he is trying to throw around a little scientific and engineering "prowess"

Now ghostrider: LOL! Yes MSEE it's really that obvious. You fancy yourself a "highly trained engineer", but you're too dense to understand the most basic things about sampling theory.

.... I notice you cowardly ignored the question about how the Gallup poll can get accurate statistics by sampling just a few tenths of a percent of the whole population. I guess that big statistics book on your table is beyond you after all.

See problem is ghostrider is confusing statistical sampling with sampled time functions. A statistical sample is a SET of data points. A time function sample IS a data point. They are entirely non-equivalent. One is handled by statistical methods, the other is handled analytically.

Evotard Timothy Horton's mission has nothing to do with science. It has to do with his malignant Christophobia. And he hates and fears Christianity because he sees them as a threat to his homosexuality. Indeed, his militant atheism is driven by his homosexuality. This is why he worships dirt.